Darwin-L Message Log 9: 1–50 — May 1994
Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences
Darwin-L was an international discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences, active from 1993–1997. Darwin-L was established to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present, and to encourage communication among scholars, scientists, and researchers in these fields. The group had more than 600 members from 35 countries, and produced a consistently high level of discussion over its several years of operation. Darwin-L was not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles Darwin, but instead addressed the entire range of historical sciences from an explicitly comparative perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical geography, historical anthropology, and related “palaetiological” fields.
This log contains public messages posted to the Darwin-L discussion group during May 1994. It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been reformatted, and error messages and personal messages accidentally posted to the group as a whole have been deleted. No genuine editorial changes have been made to the content of any of the posts. This log is provided for personal reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.
The master copy of this log is maintained in the Darwin-L Archives (rjohara.net/darwin) by Dr. Robert J. O’Hara. The Darwin-L Archives also contain additional information about the Darwin-L discussion group, the complete Today in the Historical Sciences calendar for every month of the year, a collection of recommended readings on the historical sciences, and an account of William Whewell’s concept of “palaetiology.”
---------------------------------------- DARWIN-L MESSAGE LOG 9: 1-50 -- MAY 1994 ---------------------------------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:1>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun May 1 00:21:26 1994 Date: Sun, 01 May 1994 01:21:45 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: List owner's monthly greeting To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro Greetings to all Darwin-L subscribers. On the first of every month I send out a short note on the status of our group with a reminder of basic commands. Darwin-L is eight months old, and we have more than 575 members from nearly 30 countries. I am grateful to all of you for your interest and your many contributions. Several subscribers have asked me to remind all participants to please sign their messages with a name and e-mail address, and to take an extra moment if necessary to format their messages carefully so that none of the lines are longer than eighty characters. Why should one bother to sign each message with name and e-mail address when this information appears in the message header? If the information _did_ always appear in the message header there would be no need to, but the fact is that many people receive their mail on systems that delete the original sender's address from the message header when the message arrives from Darwin-L. People reading their mail on such systems only see "Darwin-L" as the source of the message, and unless the original sender signs the message it might as well have been posted anonymously. The Darwin-L gopher archive is open to all subscribers on rjohara.uncg.edu (numeric address 18.104.22.168); it contains the logs of our past discussions, several bibliographies of interest to historical scientists, and gateways to a variety of other interesting network resources. Pay a visit and bring your friends. Please report any problems to email@example.com. The following are the most frequently used listserv commands that Darwin-L members may wish to know. All of these commands should be sent as regular e-mail messages to the listserv address (firstname.lastname@example.org), not to the address of the group as a whole (Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu). In each case leave the subject line of the message blank and include no extraneous text, as the command will be read and processed by the listserv program rather than by a person. To join the group send the message: SUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L <Your Name> For example: SUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L John Smith To cancel your subscription send the message: UNSUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L If you feel burdened by the volume of mail you receive from Darwin-L you may instruct the listserv program to deliver mail to you in digest format (one message per day consisting of the whole day's posts bundled together). To receive your mail in digest format send the message: SET DARWIN-L MAIL DIGEST To change your subscription from digest format back to one-at-a-time delivery send the message: SET DARWIN-L MAIL ACK To temporarily suspend mail delivery (when you go on vacation, for example) send the message: SET DARWIN-L MAIL POSTPONE To resume regular delivery send either the DIGEST or ACK messages above. For a comprehensive introduction to Darwin-L with notes on our scope and on network etiquette, and a summary of all available commands, send the message: INFO DARWIN-L To post a public message to the group as a whole simply send it as regular e-mail to the group's address (Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu). I thank you all for your continuing interest in Darwin-L. Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner Robert J. O'Hara (email@example.com) Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology 100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:2>From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon May 2 09:39:29 1994 Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 10:27:28 -0400 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Vitamin C and "need" I wonder if it is really as easy to lose a complex biochemical system as some of the respondees to the Vitamin C question suggest. In complex systems many of the subcycles utilize enzymes found in other systems. Thus, by changing or eliminating these enzymes other cell systems are effect. In addition, many of the intermediary products act as substrates in other systems, and their absence may produce problems for the organism. Lastly, if a system is effected at one of its intermediary steps, the substrate no longer acted upon by the appropriate enzyme may acculumate to toxic levels. It was suggested that 60million years is adequate to lose a system through evolution. If all the primates lack the ability to manufacture Vitamin C, then it is the ancestral group, apparently during the cretaceous, which lost this ability. Therefore, we don't know how long it really took. On the other hand, what evidence is there that early mammals actually had this capacity? Scurvy is quite rare in human populations. Excluding the rather dramatic but very infrequent sea voyages in the past, scurvy is generally only found with other deficiencies and is a sign of general nutritional shortages. But humans are not really frugivorous. What is the distribution of Vitamin C synthesis which actually supports the notion that you lose it if you don't use it? spencer turkel life science dept. nyit email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:3>From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon May 2 17:11:52 1994 From: email@example.com (Deborah Duchon) Subject: Re: Vitamin C and "need" To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 18:12:44 -0500 (EDT) Thank you, SPencer. Well stated. -- Deborah Duchon email@example.com Georgia State University 404/651-1038 _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:4>From WTUCKER@BOOTES.UNM.EDU Mon May 2 18:41:23 1994 Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 17:38 MST From: WTUCKER@BOOTES.UNM.EDU Subject: Re: Vitamin C and "need" To: firstname.lastname@example.org In partial response to Spencer Turkel, the rapidity with which the ability to synthesize Vitamin C was lost in many frugivores is good evidence for a metabolic cost of some significance of the ability. I do not believe that anyone hypothesizes, as you suggest, that all mammalian species lacking the ability to synthesize Vitamin C are descended from a single ancestor. Rather, convergent evolution is the likely mechanism. Both drift (the force favored by most posters on this list so far) and natural selection (the force I suggested in an earlier posting) are possible causes of convergent evolution. A relatively simple multiple regression analysis of a large sample of organisms that consume a lot of dietary Vitamin C could disentangle these hypotheses. Clutton-Brock, Harvey, and their students have done a lot of work like this with a myriad of other species characteristics. I no of noone who has tried this with Vitamin C synthesis. W. Troy Tucker Department of Anthropology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 e-mail WTucker@Bootes.UNM.EDU (Internet) _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:5>From email@example.com Mon May 2 20:07:44 1994 Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 21:03:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: email@example.com We see lots of stuff on species disappearing and we also hear from time to time to languages being threatened - yet we never hear about the opposite, radiation or creation of species and languages. I can understand someof the difficulties with documenting newly emerging phenomena. But should we assume that the processes that create new languages and species have more or less ceased to work? _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:6>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon May 2 20:09:08 1994 Date: Mon, 02 May 1994 21:09:25 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: May 2 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro MAY 2 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1551: WILLIAM CAMDEN is born in London, England. Camden will study at St. Paul's School and Oxford University, where his interest in antiquities will begin to develop. Following the example of an earlier generation of continental European antiquarians, Camden will travel widely throughout the British Isles, collecting and describing Roman remains, transcribing inscriptions, and searching through ecclesiastical and public archives. The product of his labors, _Britannia_ (London, 1586), will be the first comprehensive historical and topographical survey of British antiquities, and it will establish a new standard of scholarship for an entire generation of British historians. Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences. For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to email@example.com, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (22.214.171.124). _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:7>From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon May 2 22:08:11 1994 Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 23:07:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Rebecca Fodden <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: firstname.lastname@example.org On Mon, 2 May 1994, Steve Miller wrote: > We see lots of stuff on species disappearing and we also hear from time > to time to languages being threatened - yet we never hear about the > opposite, radiation or creation of species and languages. I can > understand someof the difficulties with documenting newly emerging > phenomena. But should we assume that the processes that create new > languages and species have more or less ceased to work? Steve: It seems to me that evolutionary theory only works in hindsight. We take a situation as it is now, and tell a story about how it could have gotten to this stage. If we're lucky, we find a story that fits with all our evidence -- saves the phenomena, so to speak. Becuause it's not the kind of theory that allows for predictions (in a sense, to say that something "survived" is to say no more than that it must have been "fittest", and vice versa), the kind of forward-looking project you describe seems to me not within the reach of evolutionary theory. I'm writing a philosophy of science paper right now on explanation, and the asymmetry of explanation and prediction in evolutionary theory is intersting to me. If you (or anybody) wants to talk about this that would be great. Rebecca Fodden, Grad. Student of Philosophy at UofT email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:8>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon May 2 22:57:33 1994 Date: Mon, 02 May 1994 23:57:51 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro Following up an earlier message about linguistic and biological extinction, Steve Miller asks whether the processes that create new species and languages have ceased to operate today. Not at all. The evolutionary processes that produce species -- mutation, recombination, drift, selection, geographical isolation, and so on -- all operate today, and details about them can be found in any good textbook on evolutionary biology. The idea that "evolution has stopped" is a misconception one often encounters in popular writing, and even in some of the older technical literature. It comes from a very strong tendency people have to view historical processes teleologically. The same basic fallacy can be observed in writing on civil history also, where many authors over the years have written as though their own time period represented "the end of history". (There's even an episode of the comic strip _Calvin and Hobbes_ that makes this point. Calvin says something like "I have concluded that history is a force. Its irresistable tide sweeps all men and institutions along one course. Everything serves history's single purpose." Hobbes inquires rather skeptically just what this purpose is, and Calvin replies "Why, to produce _me_ of course: I'm the end result of history.") I'm not a professional linguist, but as far as I know the linguistic answer to this question is similar to the evolutionary answer. (Actually, if any of our linguists could quote or point me to examples of linguistic teleology of the sort described above I would be grateful. This is another common theme that cuts across the historical sciences. Not only do we sometimes have the same insights, we also sometimes make the same errors.) Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner Robert J. O'Hara (email@example.com) Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology 100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:9>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon May 2 23:43:27 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 00:43:43 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: Historical explanation To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro Rebecca Fodden asks about the nature of explanation in the historical sciences, an interesting topic indeed. It seemed to me that this general question had come up once before in the early days of the list, so I fished through the logs and found an earlier posting of mine that tried to sketch a rough and ready outline the topic as a whole. I reprint most of that message below, and would welcome any additional contributions relating to it, especially from anyone who may be familiar with the current literature on explanation in linguistics or history. (Has explanation ever been a topic of philosophical interest in geology?) This message was originally a response to messages posted by Tom Cravens and George Gale. ---------------------------------------- <2:160>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sat Oct 30 00:33:32 1993 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 01:39:45 -0400 (EDT) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: Some notes on historical explanation To: email@example.com Organization: University of NC at Greensboro [...] As Tom noted, the whole topic of explanation is a huge can of worms, but it is an interesting and delectible one. I think there's lots of room for important and innovative work here, because much of what has been written about explanation in the historical sciences has used models of explanation that were developed originally in the context of the non-historical experimental and physical sciences. One of the things I have tried to do in my own work is explore some of the literature on explanation in history generally, and from what I have seen there are a lot of ideas in that literature that could be fruitfully applied to problems in the historical sciences. While many people in the historical sciences have some familiarity with the philosophy of science, the philosophy of _history_ remains a very small and very much under-studied field for reasons that largely escape me. Anyone who wants to consider philosophical issues in the historical sciences, though, really ought to delve into the philosophy of history, because that's where the most relevant work will be found, in my opinion. What follows is just brief sketch-map of the territory to supplement what George already posted; it may help people orient themselves with respect to the topic and provide a few useful references. One of most important early twentieth-century views of historical explanation and understanding, usually associated with the work of Robin Collingwood (1946), was the "reenactment" view: we understand the actions of Caesar when we can reenact in our own minds the thoughts he had, and see how they led him to take the actions that he took. The development of a sense of sympathetic understanding has always been considered important by historians, and Collingwood's reenactment notion attempts to capture this. But this is in many respects the least interesting view of historical explanation and understanding from the point of view of the historical sciences, because "history" for Collingwood was only the history of human actions: the earth has no "history" for him, because it is not a rational being whose mind we can enter. This is clearly a very narrow definition of "history", and Toulmin & Goodfield responded to it quite effectively in the introduction to their book _The Discovery of Time_ (1965). During the mid-twentieth century most discussion of historical explanation focussed on the so-called covering law model of explanation that George Gale mentioned. This model of explanation is usually associated with Carl Hempel, who tried to extend it from its original home in the physical sciences into history in a very influential paper published in 1942. Much of this work is considered old hat nowadays, but it was important because it drove a number of people who didn't like Hempel's project to examine carefully just what historical explanation and understanding were like, under the assumption they were not just immature versions of physics as Hempel had seemed to imply. Beginning in the 1950s, partly in reaction to Hempel, a number of people began developing autonomous theories of historical explanation and understanding under the general rubric of "analytical philosophy of history". Some of the principal actors involved were (and are) William Dray, Morton White, Arthur Danto, Louis Mink, William Gallie, Patrick Gardner, W. H. Walsh, and Alan Donagan; if you search a good library catalog under these names you will turn up lots of titles. Recent collections of the work of these people that I have found particularly useful include Dray (1989) and Mink (1987). With regard to narrative representation (though not necessarily explanation) I have found, and continue to find, Danto's _Narration and Knowledge_ (1985) very valuable. The analytical philosophers of history tried to characterize a number of kinds of explanations used in historical writing in addition to the covering-law type discussed by Hempel. These included narratives, continuous series explanations, integrating explanations, how-possibly explanations, and others. David Hull, a noted philosopher of evolutionary biology, wrote a very nice paper (1975) on integrating explanations that deserves more attention than it has had; and I've applied Dray's notion of "how-possibly" explanations to evolutionary biology in one of my own papers (1988). Some of the most recent work in these areas has been influenced by literary theories of narrative. People like Hayden White and Paul Ricoeur are important in this context, though I have tended to find this work less accessible to me as a scientist than the earlier work of Danto, Dray, and their allies. This is just the briefest of sketches; there is a good deal of recent literature in these areas that I have not followed closely. The journal _History and Theory_ (the principal journal in philosophy of history) regularly publishes papers on all aspects of historical explanation and understanding, and is a good place to look to find out what's going on. Literature cited above: Collingwood, Robin G. 1946. _The Idea of History_. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Danto, Arthur C. 1985. _Narration and Knowledge_. New York: Columbia University Press. Dray, William. 1989. _On History and Philosophers of History_. Leiden: E. J. Brill. (Excellent volume of selected papers.) Hempel, Carl G. 1942. The function of general laws in history. _Journal of Philosophy_, 39:35-48. (Reprinted in Hempel's selected papers volume, the title of which I don't recall.) Hull, David L. 1975. Central subjects and historical narratives. _History and Theory_, 14:253-274. (Reprinted in Hull's selected papers volume _The Metaphysics of Evolution_, 1989.) Mink, Louis O. 1987. _Historical Understanding_ (B. Fay, E. O. Golub, & R. T. Vann, eds.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (Excellent volume of selected papers.) O'Hara, Robert J. 1988. Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. _Systematic Zoology_, 37:142-155. Toulmin, Stephen E., & June Goodfield. 1965. _The Discovery of Time_. New York: Harper and Row. (Reprinted by University of Chicago Press. The single best book on the historical sciences, in my opinion.) Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner Robert J. O'Hara (firstname.lastname@example.org) Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology 100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A. ---------------------------------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:10>From CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu Tue May 3 06:35:40 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 94 06:35 CDT From: Tom Cravens <CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: email@example.com Teleology of language change (development, evolution [!?]) is a hot topic in historical linguistics--and a large can of worms, with positions often conditioned more by theoretical presupposition than by objective analysis of data. In my experience, language creation is less hot and less controversial, although debate can degenerate into (what appear to be on the surface of it, and to some extent, I think, are) terminological squabbles (e.g. language - dialect). There are folks on the list with far more expertise than mine on these matters, though, so I'll just point interested non-linguists to some background reading. Both of these books suffer from a disinclination to consider work not published in English, and both tend to ignore or give slight shrift to minority positions, but most basic concepts are there, and discussed clearly. Aitchison, Jean. 1991. Language change: progress or decay? Cambridge: CUP. Elementary, but not as elementary as it seems at first glance. A. is just very good at synthesizing clearly. Chapters of especial interest might be 8 and 9 on causes of change, 10 and 11 on teleology, 13 and 14 on language birth and death, respectively. Less elementary and perhaps better for orientation to the problems of teleology and birth/death at a greater level of understanding is McMahon, April M.S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: CUP. The table of contents is sufficient guide. List members might find chapter 12, entitled "Linguistic evolution?" to be especially interesting. See also, perhaps, subcategorization of language death as language suicide and language murder. Tom Cravens firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:11>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 3 07:24:41 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 94 05:24:53 PDT From: email@example.com (Peter H. Salus) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death Far be it from me to criticize Tom Cravens' views of wwhom to read on linguistic teleology, but I would start with the two superb works by Michael Shapiro (both Indiana U. Press), then Raimo Anttila's recent writings. Both of them will lead the reader to interesting European work slighted by the Anglo-American majoritarians. An easy way to slide into this may be via my review of Shapiro in Am.J. Semiotics 5 (1987) 171-177. [this is a paid ad.] Peter H. Salus _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:12>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca Tue May 3 07:51:14 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 08:50:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: email@example.com on the contrary we hear almost daily about new species being recognized. unfortunately, most of them are bacteria and viruses. the recent development (and publicity) of the many antibiotic resistant bacteria (i.e. pneumonia, tuberculosis, etc.), the host of new viruses (esp. flu) every year are examples of radiation. another obvious (and well publicized especially in Europe) example is the "crazy cow" pathogen that "jumped the species barrier". another example that may prove very to be very well publicized in the near future is the return of the potato blight that caused the 1840's famine in Ireland that has resurfaced in a form that apparently is resistant to the various pesticides developed to control the original blight. bonnie blackwell _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:13>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca Tue May 3 08:09:14 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 09:07:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: firstname.lastname@example.org I also would argue that the development of "black" english over the last few centuries in the US (mainly) is the result of linguistic evolution. granted thatthis may only be a dialect at the moment, given cultural isolation, it might develop into a full blown language. certainly some of its grammatical rules are already different from english. Both black and mainstream english continue to evolve. if you asked a person born in 1800 to try to understand our current vernacular english, they would be unable to grasp more than 20-30%. partly this is a function of technological change that has added a host of new terms to the language (i.e. tv, telephone, fax, video, computers, etc.) that include new words in all grammatical categories (verbs, nouns, etc) we have also added hundreds of cultural references that are unique to our times. for example, "latch-key kids", or "politically correct speech" imply a host of cultural references that someone from the past would not understand. the list is endless. one excellent example of the evolution of the language is the use of adverbs by speakers (and writers) of US english (which is now beginning to become a feature of Canadian spoken english too). It is almost impossible to hear the word "really" used as a modifier of an adjective these days, rather than the more common "real", often used in the phrases "real good", "real fast", etc. more recently, the trend in the US has been to begin to drop the "ly" from many adverbs being used in all usages. I predict that within 20 years, the formal adverb will be dead in spoken english in the US. It may hold on for another 100 or so years in written english, but it will eventually be as dead as "thee", "thine", and "thy". _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:14>From email@example.com Tue May 3 08:26:31 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 94 06:26:43 PDT From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter H. Salus) To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death My apologies. The citation I gave was my review of Shapiro's first volume. My review of the second was in Am.J. Semiotics 8 (1991) 107-115. Peter _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:15>From CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu Tue May 3 08:38:19 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 94 08:38 CDT From: Tom Cravens <CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: firstname.lastname@example.org I fully agree with Peter Salus' recommendations re teleology in language change. My intent in recommending the introductory textbooks was to ease people into the material, so that those with little or no knowledge of linguistic concepts and controversies could acquire some field-specific background and perspective, and thus reduce the chances of disorientation and/or puzzlement (if only terminological) upon digging into the heavier stuff. Tom Cravens email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:16>From email@example.com Tue May 3 09:17:04 1994 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death Date: Tue, 03 May 94 10:17:27 -0400 From: Sally Thomason <email@example.com> Steve Miller asks if we should assume that the processes that create new languages have more or less ceased to work. The answer is no, but it is of course true that new languages are less likely to emerge and crystallize and survive in the modern world, with a few major languages taking over so much geographical and cultural territory. There are two ways of getting new languages: gradual language split, which happens when separated subgroups of a single speech community develop different dialects and eventually separate languages -- inevitably, once communication has broken down between the two groups. But for that you need hundreds of years. Language split is certainly occurring in many parts of the world, at least at the dialect level and no doubt at the separate-language level too in some places. The other way of getting a new language is by (relatively) sudden language creation, a response to a social situation in which languages are in contact. The most famous contact languages are pidgin and creole languages (e.g. Haitian Creole, Jamaican Creole, and various forms of Pidgin English around the world); these arose in new communities formed of linguistically diverse component groups. Some of the speech patterns of guest-workers in Germany and other European countries show some of the characteristics of pidgin languages, though they aren't (as far as one can tell) developing into independent separate language(s). There are also mixed languages spoken by new ethnic groups, in situations of at least partial bilingualism. Michif, for instance, arose a couple of hundred years ago or so, as the linguistic manifestation of the Metis population in Canada; its nouns are almost all French, and its verbs are Cree (an Algonquian language), and the sounds, word forms, and syntax are divided according to the chunk of the lexicon too. Well, that's two hundred years ago. But more recently, a speech form...*maybe* one could call it a separate language, but I don't know how stable it is...arose in Quechua-speaking territory, among culturally Quechua people who work(ed) in the nearby city, where they spoke/speak Spanish: the vocabulary of this speech form, the Media Lengua, is all Spanish, but the grammar, sound structure, etc., are all Quechua. So yes, the processes through which new languages are created are still operating. Probably not as pervasively as in past centuries, though. Sally Thomason firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:17>From Robert.Richardson@UC.Edu Tue May 3 09:35:11 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 10:34:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Bob Richardson, University of Cincinnati" <Robert.Richardson@UC.Edu> Subject: More on Vitamin C To: Darwinemail@example.com In an earlier posting, Turkel asks whether "it is really as easy to lose a complex biochemical system" as some have suggested. He points out that both the involvement of enzymes in other reactions, and the use of intermediaries in other reactions, casts some doubt on questions of how readily they can be lost. As Turkel notices, the discussions so far in this group have not addressed questions of the polarity of the trait: what evidence is there, he asks, that early mammals had the ability to synthesize C? And if all or most primates lack the capacity, doesn't that suggest that it was lost in some ancestral group? These strike me as good questions. Then Tucker responds, more recently: >In partial response to Spencer Turkel, the rapidity with which the >ability to synthesize Vitamin C was lost in many frugivores is good >evidence for a metabolic cost of some significance of the ability. I do >not believe that anyone hypothesizes, as [Turkel] suggest[s], that all >mammalian species lacking the ability to synthesize Vitamin C are >descended from a single ancestor. Rather, convergent evolution is the >likely mechanism. Both drift (the force favored by most posters on this >list so far) and natural selection (the force I suggested in an earlier >posting) are possible causes of convergent evolution. A relatively simple >multiple regression analysis of a large sample of organisms that consume >a lot of dietary Vitamin C could disentangle these hypotheses. It is not this easy. (1) Do we have any independent estimate of the "metabolic cost" aside from the (supposed) loss of the ability to synthesize Vitamin C, which it is supposed to explain? (2) Turkel's actual suggestion, I think, was that if all/most primates lack the ability to synthesize vitamin C, then that suggests that it was lost in some ancestral group. Why should we accept that convergent evolution is the [more] likely mechanism? One thing that seems to be lacking is information about what trait is ancestral and what is derived. Is there anything bearing directly on this question? To shift directions a bit, disentangling the hypotheses of drift and selection is not as easy as suggested. Assuming that the evolved trait is the loss of vitamin C synthesis, the best analysis I know of would require knowing (a) mutation rates, (b) the number of loci involved, (c) the number of loci necessary to block the pathway, (d) the time span involved, and (e) the relevant effective population sizes. (The work derives from Sewell Wright, but the source I'd recommend is Russel Lande, "Natural Selection and Random Genetic Drift in Phenotypic Evolution," Evolution 30 (1976): 314-34.) How much of this do we know in the case of the loss of vitamin C? I'm obviously not suggesting evolution is irrelevant here, any more than Turkel was. I am left wondering, though, whether the sort of information we would need in order to figure out the right evolutionary scenario is available. Perhaps someone can fill in the gaps. Robert C. Richardson Department of Philosophy ML 374 Richards@UCBEH.Bitnet University of Cincinnati Richards@UCBEH.san.uc.edu Cincinnati OH 45221-0374 Telephone: 513-556-6327 Fax number: 513-556-2939 _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:18>From PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Tue May 3 10:55:26 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 11:22:46 -0500 (EST) From: MARC PICARD <PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: firstname.lastname@example.org Every current dialect has the potential of becoming a full-fledged language given a sufficient amount of time. Phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic change are constant, inexorable and irrepressible for the most part. Mutual comprehension, which is probably the most useful criterion for establishing the difference between dialect and language, can cease to exist pretty rapidly when there is little or no contact between members of an erstwhile speech community that has split up. For example, Dutch and Afrikaans appear to have become different languages in a remarkably short time. The same forces that turned Latin into various dialects and, with time, into French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, Rumanian, etc., are now at work on the latter so that the French, Spanish and Portuguese of the New World, for instance, are irrevocably becoming less and less comprehensible to their Old World cousins (and vice versa). The next time you see subtitles when people in Northern Ireland or Australia are being interviewed for North American news broadcasts and documentaries, you can take this as a sign of things to come. Marc Picard _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:19>From email@example.com Tue May 3 14:14:50 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 12:08:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Schoenemann <schoenem@qal.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Re: More on Vitamin C To: firstname.lastname@example.org If some species do not create their own Vitamin C, but share the rest of their biochemistry with related species, there must be, by definintion, some enzyme or set of enzymes (specific only to Vitamin C production) lacking in the biochemical pathway of Vitamin C production. The DNA that codes for this enzyme, like all DNA, is subject to random mutation, and the number of ways of disabling it is always much higher than the number of ways of making it "better," and it will therefore have a very high likelihood of being destroyed by this process (i.e., an increasingly large number of defective genes drifting through the population). Sure, there are a number of enzymes that affect more than one biochemical process, and deleterious mutations in these enzymes will not make it through the sieve of selection, but there must be something specific to Vitamin C, or there wouldn't be any species that don't produce it. If the enzymatic pathways are really as intricate as some have suggested, then it becomes highly unlikely that ANY change would occur, since the extra cost of producing Vitamin C would likely be trivial in comparison to the cost of tweaking an interrelated web of enzymes. We would have to show that there is some significant cost to leaving the Vitamin C pathway intact. The point is that there is no a priori reason to suspect that the loss of some adaptation is necessarily due to selection. P. Tom Schoenemann Department of Anthropology University of California, Berkeley (email@example.com) _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:20>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 3 14:32:17 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 12:26:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Schoenemann <schoenem@qal.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Evolution of bodies but not minds To: email@example.com I have a general question I would like to float. I periodically get literature from an organization called the National Center for Science Education based here in berkeley that is basically an advocacy group that works to expand and increase the quality of teaching on evolutionary theory in public schools. Their literature argues, as I think those of us on this list would agree, that it is essential that evolutionary thinking be emphasized in the school systems around the country. What has always puzzled me, however, is that Lewontin and Gould are both listed as supporting members. I find this interesting because both Gould and Lewontin (but particularly the latter) believe that the application of evolutionary theory to human BEHAVIOR is misguided, dangerous, etc. In fact it seems to be generally true that scientists are very quick to argue that our physical bodies evolved, but very slow to take seriously the position that our behavior is the result of evolution as well. One example of this fact can be seen in the arguments about the incest taboo. In apparently all other species where this has been investigated, there are behavioral mechanisms (which can vary from species to species) to ensure outbreeding. We also are quite clear on the detrimental effects of inbreeding, both in the short and long run. Yet many academics, including Lewontin, believe that the human incest taboo has no biological influence at all, and is not the modern result of perhaps a billion years of selection against inbreeding. Regardless of whether or not people accept the sociobiological argument on the incest taboo, I am more interested in a separate question: For those like Lewontin and Gould, who reject the notion that evolutionary biology can have significant explanatory power for behavior in general (and human behavior in particular), exactly what is so crucial about getting the public to believe that their bodies evolved, given that they don't at the same time have to extend this thinking to their minds? Put another way, if the public were to continue to believe that their minds were the result of special creation (either by a god or by themselves), how would the world be a better place if we convinced them that their bodies were the result of evolution? What practical benefits would one expect to see from such a state of affairs? Any thoughts? P. Tom Schoenemann Department of Anthropology University of California, Berkeley (firstname.lastname@example.org) _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:21>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca Tue May 3 15:17:38 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 16:14:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: email@example.com I might have thought that much of the separation of say French and Quebecois occurred in the early years of colonization, rather than recently. With modern global communications, I would have thought that French and Quebecois were converging somewhat or at least not diverging. Comments? bonnie _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:22>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 3 16:03:14 1994 From: Jerry Koch <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death Date: Tue May 3 13:37:46 1994 Marc Picard Writes: >Every current dialect has the potential of becoming a full-fledged >language given a sufficient amount of time. But, I'm not so sure I buy into that. Sure, all languages in use change. That's what marks the difference between them and dead languages. But, today, global communications greatly inhibit the isolation that it requires for dialects to become languages in their own right. To the contrary, I believe that as today's technology booms, we will tend to move toward fewer and fewer languages. I might even go so far as to suggest that eventually there will be no motivating factors to sustain more than one world language. Jerry Koch email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:23>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 3 16:21:45 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 17:04:13 -0400 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: More on Vitamin C In respect to the ease of losing Vitamin C synthesis, it is important to note that very few vertebrates have in fact lost this ability. This distribution is interesting because Vitamin C is not rare in the food supply of species that have not lost it. For example, fish are good sources of Vitamin C but few piscivores lack the ability to synthesize. Similarly, many frugivores are able to synthesis Vitamin C. Which are the few vertebrates that have lost this ability, and can this distribution simply be explained by "use it or lose it?" Primates, some Chiroptera, rodents and about 1 species of bird seem to be about it. spencer turkel life sciences nyit email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:24>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 3 18:03:32 1994 From: Jerry Koch <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death Date: Tue May 3 15:08:26 1994 >From: Bonnie Blackwell >I might have thought that much of the separation of say French and Quebecois >occurred in the early years of colonization, rather than recently. With >modern global communications, I would have thought that French and Quebecois >were converging somewhat or at least not diverging. Comments? Sure! Let me give you an example of my theory that you may have noticed in your own experience. Say someone from the west coast (USA) visits the east coast for an extended period (or the south, or anywhere where there is a noticable difference in dialect). Upon their return you may find that they have picked up some of the accent or different use of words. In language we tend to imitate, to some extent, what we hear. As communications improve and expand, we are more apt to hear the same things, and will then tend to speak the same way. There are other factors, though, that apply to languages that are totally different. For example, in a global economy, we are motivated to communicate, for trade purposes with as many people as possible. That requires that either we learn their language or they learn ours. It's terribly inefficient to try to communicate in a wide variety of languages. I we tend to work toward a state of improved efficency. email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:25>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 3 18:22:35 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 17:22:54 -0700 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Larry Gorbet) Subject: re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death Jerry Koch writes: >Marc Picard Writes: >> Every current dialect has the potential of becoming a full-fledged >>language given a sufficient amount of time. > >But, I'm not so sure I buy into that. Sure, all languages in use change. >That's what marks the difference between them and dead languages. But, >today, global communications greatly inhibit the isolation that it requires >for dialects to become languages in their own right. To the contrary, I >believe that as today's technology booms, we will tend to move toward fewer >and fewer languages. I might even go so far as to suggest that eventually >there will be no motivating factors to sustain more than one world language. But, as presently constituted, global communications is largely one-sided in the sense that it is mostly conducted in the "big" languages, not the "little" ones and, equally importantly, in the "big" varieties (dialects etc.) of the "big" lgs., not the "little" ones. So the effect is to make certain varieties of language widespread, but with much less impact on contact between most dialects. Thus there is minimal contact between, say, the English of northern Louisiana and that of northern England, not to even mention that of Singapore or of New Zealand. Since the English of broadcast and most widely-distributed movies etc. is not inclusive of all domains of language use, it is certainly possible for there to be continuing divergence of many varieties. IF the social and cultural forces that favor that divergence (or at least do not favor convergence to the "world" varieties) are sufficient. I think the impact of global communications on future language convergence will be determined more by its effects on attitudes toward ethnicity and other socio-cultural domains than by its narrowly linguistic effects. After all, the split of Latin into the various Romance languages did not take place in the absence of language contact and, in fact, took place where there was continued use of Latin over most of the range. Larry Gorbet email@example.com Anthropology & Linguistics Depts. (505) 883-7378 University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:26>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Tue May 3 18:52:52 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 19:53:12 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: May 3 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro MAY 3 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1809: LAURENT-GUILLAUME DE KONINCK is born at Louvain, Belgium. Following study in medicine and science at the University of Louvain, De Koninck will accept positions teaching chemistry, first at the University of Ghent, and later at the University of Liege where he will remain until his death in 1887. Although his formal instructional responsibilities will nearly always be in chemistry, De Koninck will be remembered primarily as a paleontologist. His extensive work on the Carboniferous fossils of Europe will come together in his _Description des animaux fossiles qui se trouvent dans le terrain carbonifere de la Belgique_ (Liege, 1843-44) and his comprehensive _Faune du calcaire carbonifere de la Belgique_ (1878-87). Many of De Koninck's books and early specimens will be purchased by Louis Agassiz in the 1860s, and Agassiz will make them the core of his newly-founded Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group for professionals in the historical sciences. For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to email@example.com, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (126.96.36.199). _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:27>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 3 19:29:24 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 94 19:29:49 CDT From: "Asia "I work in mysterious ways" Lerner" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Evolution of bodies but not minds You wrote: What has always puzzled me, however, is that Lewontin and Gould are both listed as supporting members. I find this interesting because both Gould and Lewontin (but particularly the latter) believe that the application of evolutionary theory to human BEHAVIOR is misguided, dangerous, etc. Please show the necessary logical connection between the belief in biological evolution and the belief in behavioral evolution. In fact it seems to be generally true that scientists are very quick to argue that our physical bodies evolved, but very slow to take seriously the position that our behavior is the result of evolution as well. That's because many scientists take to heart past exterience in which behavioural traits, racial traits, gender traits, class traits, etc.., were explained as a simplistic evolutionary result, in a way that simply re-enforced socially encoded stereotypes by assigning then naturalistic ontology. According to some, sociobiology is deja vu all over again. One example of this fact can be seen in the arguments about the incest taboo. In apparently all other species where this has been investigated, there are behavioral mechanisms (which can vary from species to species) ???? In what other species except _Homo sapiens_ was this behavioural mechanism observed? to ensure outbreeding. We also are quite clear on the detrimental effects of inbreeding, both in the short and long run. Yet many academics, including Lewontin, believe that the human incest taboo has no biological influence at all, and is not the modern result of perhaps a billion years of selection against inbreeding. There are critical differences as to what counts as incest among different human groups that make the above supposition extremely questionable. Regardless of whether or not people accept the sociobiological argument on the incest taboo, I am more interested in a separate question: For those like Lewontin and Gould, who reject the notion that evolutionary biology can have significant explanatory power for behavior in general (and human behavior in particular), This is certainly a strawman. exactly what is so crucial about getting the public to believe that their bodies evolved, given that they don't at the same time have to extend this thinking to their minds? Put another way, if the public were to continue to believe that their minds were the result of special creation (either by a god or by themselves), how would the world be a better place if we convinced them that their bodies were the result of evolution? What practical benefits would one expect to see from such a state of affairs? What practical efects do you expect to achive by convincing the world that behavoiur is evolved and biologically encoded? Asia _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:28>From email@example.com Tue May 3 19:35:39 1994 From: "Gessler, Nicholas (G) ANTHRO" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: DARWIN - postings <DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu> Subject: Computational "Artificial Life/Culture" Date: Tue, 03 May 94 17:39:00 PDT I've embarked on a project to take the evolutionary algorithmic paradigms used in the computationally intensive fields of "artificial intelligence" and "artificial life" and adapt them towards modeling what I have been calling "Artificial Culture." It seems to me that this approach would be both epistemologically and theoretically useful for understanding cultural change and evolution and the process of hominidization as well. Basically, it is an agent based approach. I model society as a population of individuals which interact with one another in a virtual world where space, time, and energy costs/benefits need to be contended with. The system will eventually evolve, with fitnesses determined by each individual's success within the virtual world. I feel fairly secure with the computational techniques. I was wondering if any readers of this List either knew of, or had embarked on similar projects. I'd appreciate being connected with any references to "primitive" elements or behaviors which are both crucial and programmable. Please reply directly to me. If there's enough interest, I'll summarize the results in another Post. Many thanks... Nick Gessler _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:29>From ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU Tue May 3 21:09:26 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 94 21:59:01 EDT From: ANWOLFE@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU Subject: Re: Evolution of bodies but not minds To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com> On Tom Schoenemann--your comments are confused. In the first place incest taboos are only found in humans because a "taboo" is a cultural determined marriage/mating avoidance practice and varies from culture to culture ie in one culture marrying your parallel cousin might be the correct to do but you can't marry your cross cousin or that would be incest, etc. Some nonhuman animals have incest avoidance but that seems to be based on growing up with a relative. Also, it has not been shown that inbreeding is necessarily harmful--it depends on the genes you start with. Human biologists demonstrated that years ago. Finally, do not confuse evolutionary biology with sociobiology -- one can believe that the biological basis of human behavior evolved through the process of evolution without accepting sociobiology. Linda Wolfe _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:30>From PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Tue May 3 21:27:08 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 22:25:26 -0500 (EST) From: MARC PICARD <PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA> Subject: Re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: firstname.lastname@example.org Jerry Koch writes: Sure, all languages in use change. That's what marks the difference between them and dead languages. But, today, global communications greatly inhibit the isolation that it requires for dialects to become languages in their own right. To the contrary, I believe that as today's technology booms, we will tend to move toward fewer and fewer languages. I might even go so far as to suggest that eventually there will be no motivating factors to sustain more than one world language. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. People have absolutely no control over language change because they just can't see - or rather hear - it, except maybe for a few current buzz words or teenage expressions that would only constitute an infenitisimal part of linguistic change anyway. Languages do not need isolation to evolve: just ask any socio- linguist. Marc Picard _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:31>From PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Tue May 3 22:18:54 1994 Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 22:15:33 -0500 (EST) From: MARC PICARD <PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: email@example.com French and quebecois, as they are actually spoken by real people, are diverging as rapidly from each other as the other three New World languages are diverging from their Old World cousins. When one compares their respective phonological systems, for example, one sees an ever increasing number of differences. Over the years, Quebecois has acquired (inter alia) assibilation (/t d/ > /ts dz/ before high front vowels), diphthongization of long vowels, high vowel laxing, high vowel devoicing, high vowel harmony, etc. Global communication does not keep dialects from diverging, it only allows people to have a greater passive knowledge of other dialects. If you watch a lot of British movies or if you go to Ireland every year, your comprehension of these dialects will improve a lot. The main reason linguistic change never ends is that people are not aware that it's going on during their lifetime. They observe social and geographical divergences but they don't sense that there's an evolution going on. Marc Picard _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:32>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 3 22:23:17 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 23:25:51 -0400 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeremy Creighton Ahouse) Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death A good example of the spontaneous creation of languages are the many hand sign systems that have arisen in deaf communities around the world. The arise in the first generation of signers as a partial language, but the next generation (those who acquire it during those early years of mother "tongue" language acquisition) get a complete language. The linguists who read this group may be able to point us to the key differences. (For a longer description; _Seeing voices : a journey into the world of the deaf_ by Oliver Sacks, New York : HarperCollins, 1990.) - Jeremy _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:33>From email@example.com Tue May 3 23:40:12 1994 Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 00:23:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: linguistic/biological evolution To: email@example.com Thanks everybody for responding so quickly and comprehensively to my inital question on whether we see these processes in action to today. I found particularly fascinating the more general philosophy of science comments - this is something I don't know a whole lot about. A couple general comments: I wasn't trying to imply that the various mechanisms of evolution aren't at work today - just that speciation is awfully hard to watch. In a sense I guess it is a name-it-and-nail-it problem - when are two languages truly different? At what point have they diverged? There's a big unit of study problem inherent in here - one that I think we also see in evolution in some ways, for instance in deciding whether coyotes are a separate species from domestic dogs and wolves. These animals apparenlty will interbreed in some instances. I am reminded, also, of a paper I recently read in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament (1992 or 3, Van der Veer and Brecker, eds., as I recall, don't have it with me, sorry) about the status of certain languages in precolonial and early colonial India - Urdu and Hindustani, for instance. In what sense were the various patterns of utterances found separable languages? For the British it turned out to be very important to identify specific languages which, for them, had in some sense separate essences. This of course made it very important to certain groups to have their language recognized as the official one... So in this way the identification of language change and the discreteness of languages makes a difference in the real world. And the same is of course true with species - for instance is the spotted owl a true species, or has it, as some have suggested, been, er, spotted in Northern California, too? One thing that occurs to me is that, with the increasing interpenetration of media and common experiences of the new, and increasing knowledge of others, could it be that we will go back to a pattern resembling that of precolonial India, with a sort of gradually changing patois characterizing our language over space? Or maybe it's always been that way to some extent and discreteness is just a simplifying assumption of Western science that we will eventually be able to chuck in favor of complexity, if we are ever ready to embrace a non-discrete world.... _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:34>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Wed May 4 00:03:00 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 01:03:14 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: May 4 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro MAY 4 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1556: LUCA GHINI dies at Bologna, Italy. One of the founders of modern botany, Ghini was born in Croara d'Imola around 1490. He studied medicine at the University of Bologna and taught at Bologna for many years, devising a method of preserving plants by pressing, drying, and mounting them on cards to produce the first modern herbarium or "hortus siccus". Ghini left Bologna in 1544 to take up a professorship at the University of Pisa, and he established there one of the first university botanical gardens. He travelled extensively in the vicinity of Pisa and Bologna collecting specimens for his garden and herbarium, and his scientific correspondents sent him botanical material from as far away as Egypt. Although he published little during his life, Ghini numbered among his students an entire generation of early modern European botanists, including Andrea Cesalpino, Ulisse Aldrovandi, Luigi Anguillara, William Turner, and John Falconer. 1816: THOMAS OLDHAM is born in Dublin, Ireland. Following undergraduate study at Trinity College, Dublin, Oldham will travel to Edinburgh where he will study geology and mineralogy with Robert Jameson. In 1839 he will return to Ireland where he will work initially for the Ordnance Survey, and later be appointed professor of geology at Trinity. His successful geological work in Ireland will lead to his appointment as geological surveyor to the British East India Company, and eventually to the founding of a Geological Survey of India. His report _On the Coal Resources of India_ will appear in 1864, and he will superintend the creation of many Indian geological journals, including the Survey's _Palaeontological Indica_ in 1861. Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group for professionals in the historical sciences. For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to email@example.com, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (188.8.131.52). _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:35>From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed May 4 01:19:53 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 23:21:38 -0700 From: email@example.com (Anton Sherwood) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: languages and dialects > Every current dialect has the potential of becoming a > full-fledged language given a sufficient amount of time. "A language is a dialect with an army and navy." --Max Weinreich (1894-1969) _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:36>From email@example.com.Hawaii.Edu Wed May 4 04:03:45 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 94 23:04:08 HST From: Ron Amundson <firstname.lastname@example.org.Hawaii.Edu> To: email@example.com Subject: G∧L, Evolution and Behavior Tom Schoenemann finds it puzzling that Gould and Lewontin endorse the aim of improving the education regarding evolution in biology courses in the schools on the grounds that: "both Gould and Lewontin (but particularly the latter) believe that the application of evolutionary theory to human BEHAVIOR is misguided, dangerous, etc. In fact it seems to be generally true that scientists are very quick to argue that our physical bodies evolved, but very slow to take seriously the position that our behavior is the result of evolution as well." Some of the suppressed premises of this argument have already been noted (e.g. by Asia Lerner) -- that it assumes that sociobiology is THE application of evolutionary theory to human behavior, and that the only (or a primary) value to evolutionary education is to teach students "how their behavior evolved" or some such goal. In addition I'd like to point out that neither Gould nor Lewontin has (to my knowledge) claimed that evolutionary theory is inapplicable to behavior. In fact I've heard Lewontin say that behavior is the single most important unsolved problem in evolutionary biology -- this in response to a student who (like Tom) misinterpreted his criticisms of sociobiology to be a rejection of the relevance of evolution to behavior. In a similar (similarly narrow-thinking) vein, E.O. Wilson responded to the first leftist critiques of sociobiology (in a late '70s _BIOSCIENCE_ issue, I believe) by pronouncing the critics to be neo-Skinnerian environmentalists, with _all_ behavior environmentally controlled. Such an innate-vs-learned distinction is several orders of magnitude too crude to be relevant in an evolutionary context. (IMHO, of course.) For indications of how Lewontin might locate behavior within evolutionary biology see "The Organism as Subject and Object of Evolution," a Chapter in _The Dialectical Biologist_. Precursors of this approach include Waddington (who, I believe, was a post-doc director of Lewontin's) and the late lamented "Baldwin Effect" co-discovered (co-invented) by James Mark Baldwin, C. Lloyd Morgan, and H. F. Osborn. In a 'forthcoming' paper (in 1994, it is to be hoped) I argue that the Hawaiian missionary/socialist/evolutionist J.T. Gulick is a precursor and possible influence on the formulation of the Baldwin Effect. IMHO (again) to claim that G∧L reject "the application of evolutionary theory to behavior" _because_ they reject crude human sociobiology is like claiming that modern astronomers reject "the application of planetary astronomy to the earth" _because_ they reject Velikovsky. Cheers, Ron Amundson firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:37>From GRM1001@phx.cam.ac.uk Wed May 4 05:10:03 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 94 11:09:48 BST From: GRM1001@phx.cam.ac.uk To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Naming and essentialism. Bob O'Hara relayed the following a question from Kevin de Queiroz regarding the relationship between "essences" and the naming of organisms: "I want to say that essentialist tend to think that certain names are 'correct' or proper for certain things because they tend to view names as abbreviated descriptions of essences. It's fairly obvious that they do this but I can't find anything written about it. Do you know anything that I am overlooking? Nobody seems to say much about the names themselves." What luck! It so happens that I'm working on just such a project. At present I'm just completing a book-length manuscript entitled "Species, Names and Things" which describes the historical, philosophical and sociological aspects of species naming, including struggle over language and "essences". (Although I hesitate before that word. The history of natural history is much more complicated than the "essentialist/anti-essentialist" dichotomy would lead us to believe.) This work covers the history of species and species naming from the immediate pre-Darwinian period up until the birth of the so-called "biological species concept" during the Modern Synthesis of the 1930s and 40s. Hopefully, it will offer a fresh look at the hist. of natural history and biology that avoids some of the pitfalls of post-hoc categorisation so common in much of the literature. A related paper, entitled "Species, Rules and Radical Meanings", should be published in the fall in *Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science.* It uncovers the claims of radical (politically and taxonomically) post-Linnean essentialists of the early nineteenth century and delves into Darwin's response, which led directly to the drafting of the first "Rules of Zoological Nomenclature", published in the BAAS Report of 1842. In the meantime Kevin de Q. might want to look at fine piece by Antonello La Vergata, "Au nom de l'espece. Classification et nomenclature au 19 siecle." in Scott Atran, et al, *Histoire du concept d'espece dans les sciences de la vie* (Paris: Fondation Singer-Polignac, 1987). There La Vergatta discusses the relationship between essentialism and species naming. The philosopher John Beatty has published something on this in his contribution to the book, *Darwinian Heritage*, edited by David Kohn and in the collection edited by Michael Ruse, *Nature Animated*. And, I seem to recall that E. Stresseman (sp?) has a bit on this topic in his history of Ornithology. But, all of the above authors base their work on the essentialist/anti-essentialist dichotomy, which really doesn't work. But, that's opening up a whole can of worms.... If anyone knows of any other resources or people working in this area, I'd be most happy to hear from them. Thanks. Gordon McOuat Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge Free School Lane Cambridge CB2 3RH England. email: email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:38>From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed May 4 05:14:14 1994 Date: Wed, 4 May 94 10:54:57 BST From: Margaret Winters <email@example.com> Subject: language convergence and divergence To: firstname.lastname@example.org I think Marc Picard is quite correct in citing the fact that people are largely unaware of language change as a reason that there can be no stopping of change. But there is another factor as well that comes to mind, especially with groups like Quebecois versus European French speakers, and that is the question of national identity. Even though world-wide communication is more and more impressive every year (or so), Quebecois speakers do not want to speak the French of France and European French speakers are, if anything, much more decidedly against sounding like Canadian French speakers. To the extent that there is anything that is con- scious or can be brought to conciousness by speakers, these attitudes are what there is. A more constrained example, well known within linguistics, is Labov's discovery of vowel changes taking place on Martha's Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts. Labov found, by looking at all the sociolinguistic variables, that the change was occurring most in natives of the island who identified with island life - as opposed to the life of the summer visitors who crowd the place every year. The more the year-round islanders wanted to be seen as natives, the more their vowels centralized. It is much more efficient to have one world language in terms of basic com- munication, but too many other factors (than pure efficiency) will always intervene. Cheers, Margaret Winters _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:39>From CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu Wed May 4 06:53:58 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 94 06:53 CDT From: Tom Cravens <CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu> Subject: naming - discreteness To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu On naming, discussion of interest from a linguistic viewpoint can be found in a 1991 book edited by Roger Wright, entitled, I think, Latin and Romance in the Early Middle Ages. Most relevant is the paper by Paul Lloyd, who follows the idea in Wright 1982 (Late Latin and Early Romance) that before Charlemagne, literate people in Romance Europe wrote Latin but didn't speak it, and that when they read from (what now looks like) a Latin text, what came out was the local Romance vernacular of whoever was reading. The situation was not unlike the modern one of English, in which antiquated spelling is accepted as normal (w-r-i-g-h-t representing [rait]), and the difference between modern English speakers from Dublin, York, Cape Town, Atlanta, etc. reading the same text aloud and that of Early Romance speakers from Nantes, Coimbra, Toledo, Milan, etc. reading their Latin-looking text is one of degree, not kind. The point: Lloyd argues essentially that there were not distinct names for these varieties until figures in authority decided to give them names. On discreteness, the idea (and situation) of closely cognate languages spreading more or less uniformly over a territory, and starting and stopping at national borders (e.g. Spanish in Spain, French in France, Italian in Italy) is rather modern, at least in the European context, in great part the result of the creation of relatively large nation-states. The politically unfettered development was of a continuum of cognate languages. Near homogeneity may seem normal in the miniworld of anglophone North America, but it's really exceptional, and--again in the European context--is relative to the strength of central authority, the degree to which that authority has decided to impose the prestige dialect, the degree to which speakers of non-prestige languages find it (economically) convenient to adopt the prestige dialect, and the length of time that imposition has been taking place. On the whole, it would appear that linguistic homogeneity within a territory signals either relatively recent settlement (and eradication of previous languages) or strong central authority (and eradication of previous languages). -- For a detailed look at what happened in France, see R. Anthony Lodge. 1993. French from Dialect to Standard. London; Routledge. Tom Cravens email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:40>From LARRYS@psc.plymouth.edu Wed May 4 08:13:08 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 09:13:12 -0500 (EST) From: LARRYS@psc.plymouth.edu Subject: Re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: email@example.com Organization: Plymouth State College, Plymouth NH An interesting thought just occurred to me. What seems to be happening globally (and I know many will flame me for this) is that English is becoming the universal language. I spent a year in China. In China, the national language is Putunghua (Mandarin), but everywhere we went in China the people that spoke Mandarin spoke it slightly different from those of another region. In addition to standard Chinese, every region had its own dialect. The only thing that was totally common was the character set. Now, I know that the English alphabet has a totally different functionality from Chinese characters, but my interesting thought is this. Increased global communication via written communication will standardize written English as the global language, but in oral English, dialects and regional word useage will follow the pattern of dialects and Mandarin variants as seen in China. We could see this in China where some student had been taught their English by Americans, while others had learned English from Australians. I had no problem distinquishing between the two speakers. Larry T. Spencer Natural Science Dept. Plymouth State College Plymouth, NH 03264 firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:41>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca Wed May 4 08:16:14 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 09:10:03 -0500 (EST) From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca> Subject: Re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: email@example.com RE comments by L. Gorbet: I am not sure that your comments about the split in the latin languages parallels today's situation as closely as you claim. At the time of the split, only the clergy and some of the intellectuals used latin regularly. Because most of the populations received minimal formal education, and even the wealthy/powerful often did not read and write, there was likely to be very little cultural pressure to maintaining the "pure" (grammatically correct latin with proper pronounciations) latin. Except in church few people heard latin regularly. Even in church, that latin was often ritualized, and hence, perhaps viewed by the general populace as a "priest class privilege". Today on the contrary, education reaches at least some significant part of the population. Books and magazines are widely available and widely read (although one might question the grammatical correctness of many publications). Most of our media uses the "standard" grammar (with some lapses) and pro- nounciation of the "norm" dialect. Thanks to the media, there is a reasonable chance that you might be exposed to aussie english in northern england, or louisiania english in gambia, depending on what TV shows are being purchased by what networks. In Windsor, in an average week i can watch shows carrying accents and grammar from Aus, central London, UK, various other brit shows with less determinate sources, black US english, and deep south english, not to mention cdn and american standard english. Bonn@nickel.laurentian.ca bonnie blackwell _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:42>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca Wed May 4 08:34:17 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 09:24:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca> Subject: Re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: firstname.lastname@example.org To marc Picard, Would you please provide proof of your statement, "Languages do not need isolation to evolve." It was provacative but without an example rather hard to believe. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:43>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca Wed May 4 08:52:13 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 09:45:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca> Subject: Re: G∧L, Evolution and Behavior To: email@example.com I for one would like to hear both Gould's and Lewontin's replies to these arguments. That way we would know what they REALLY do feel, not what others think they feel. Can we not ask them? _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:44>From CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu Wed May 4 09:37:21 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 94 09:37 CDT From: Tom Cravens <CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: firstname.lastname@example.org Re comments by Bonnie Blackwell and L. Gorbet: Actually, if Wright is correct (see my previous posting), there are close parallels between Latin and English developments. Wright argues that before Charlemagne's time not even clergy and intellectuals actually spoke Latin, if they were native speakers of a variety of Romance. They wrote high-register archaic versions of their native languages with Latin spelling, not entirely unlike what modern Brits, Yanks, etc. do (lexical mismatches are substitutable; those who've read British stories to American children, or vice versa, may be familiar with this -- stretching the point a bit, cf. the extreme case of reading _lb._ as 'pound'). In this view, it's not until one-letter, one-sound reading of Latin is (re-)introduced in the 800s that pervasive consciousness of Latin vs. Romance arises, and thus, the already existing distinctions of numerous evolved varieties are recognized, these are named, and thus *appear* in the documentation suddenly to split, to be "born", and so on. The split and/or language birth is a mirage, though, in part epiphenomenal of reform in mapping letter to sound. What really seems to have happened was a gradual differentiation in the language planted by Romans centuries before, parallel to what is still happening both in Britain and in former and present anglophone colonies. Tom Cravens email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:45>From email@example.com Wed May 4 09:59:31 1994 Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 11:00:01 -0400 From: ad201@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Phillipson) To: Darwinfirstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Language evolution MARC PICARD <PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA> wrote Tue, 03 May 1994 to Darwinemail@example.com > Every current dialect has the potential of becoming a >full-fledged language given a sufficient amount of time. Phonological, >morphological, syntactic and semantic change are constant, inexorable >and irrepressible for the most part. Is this an empirical observation or a pious generalization? This non-linguist (linguisticist) doesn't see why people should expect change in languages to be constant, any more than change in biological evolution (cf. punctuated equilibrium rather than Darwinian gradualism.) >Mutual comprehension, which is >probably the most useful criterion for establishing the difference >between dialect and language, can cease to exist pretty rapidly when >there is little or no contact between members of an erstwhile speech >community that has split up. Biology also suggests the rule that interbreeding differentiates varieties from species. Do linguists use this too, to distinguish languages (like biological species) from dialects (varieties)? >For example, Dutch and Afrikaans appear >to have become different languages in a remarkably short time. > The same forces that turned Latin into various dialects and, >with time, into French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, >Rumanian, etc., are now at work on the latter so that the French, >Spanish and Portuguese of the New World, for instance, are irrevocably >becoming less and less comprehensible to their Old World cousins (and >vice versa). My previous question indicates uncertainty about this, because Dutch-speakers (e.g. my wife, from central Holland) say they understand Afrikaans at least as well as they do the dialects of Limburg, and very much better than that of Friesland. > The next time you see subtitles when people in Northern >Ireland or Australia are being interviewed for North American news >broadcasts and documentaries, you can take this as a sign of things to >come. Canadian TV news seems to have begun in 1993 frequently subtitling people with difficult accents, from Canadian dialect regions e.g. Newfoundland, as well as Jugoslavs speaking English etc. Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca> wrote Tue, 03 May 1994 16:14:55 -0500 (EST) >I might have thought that much of the separation of say French and Quebecois >occurred in the early years of colonization, rather than recently. With >modern global communications, I would have thought that French and Quebecois >were converging somewhat or at least not diverging. Comments? Proposition 1 seems factual, i.e. verifiable. (Not being a linguist I cannot guess why BB expects divergence earlier rather than later.) Proposition 2 is also factual, but BB implies a symmetry that may be unjustified. If French French and Quebec French were converging (which could no doubt be measured by discipinary rather than personal methods) I should be surprised if Quebec influenced France as much and as fast as vice versa. Both prior messages seem to neglect, in a peculiarly North American way, differences between written and oral language. Educated in England to age 20, I was told there that oral language came first and written language only later. This explains (for example) how Modern English evolved out of Middle English (Chaucer), why Shakespeare did not spell consistently, etc. On arrival in N. America I was surprised at the far greater reverence for print I encountered here -- and ultimately formed the hypothesis (never tested) that it had to do with the frontier schoolmarm (or at least her image in popular culture.) Bearing alone the burden of a whole village's connection with the rest of world culture, the frontier schoolmarm naturally felt safer relying on "objective" print rather than personal memory as the basis of her curriculum. One of the consequences is that it is normal in N. America to seek to pronounce every written letter in such words as forehead, laboratory, library, police, etc., which the British would most often pronounce as "forrid, laboratry, libry, pleece" etc. -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Rd., Carlsbad | | Springs, Ont., Canada K0A 1K0; tel: (613) 822-0734 | | "What I've always liked about science is its independence from | | authority"--Ontario Science Centre (name on file) 10 July 1981 | _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:46>From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed May 4 10:36:32 1994 From: Prof Vince Sarich <sarich@qal.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 08:30:41 -0700 To: email@example.com Subject: Lewontin, Gould, and behavioral creationism Bonnie Blackwell asks: I for one would like to hear both Gould's and Lewontin's replies to these arguments. That way we would know what they REALLY do feel, not what others think they feel. Can we not ask them? Lewontin has written, along with Steven Rose and Leon Kamin, a book whose title, Not in Our Genes (Random House, 1984), tells us exactly what he thinks about the connection between human genes and human behavior. Gould has given us much the same message in his Natural History essays, and, in particular, in his Mismeasure of Man (Norton, 1981). There he manages to spend the first 2 chapters (100 or so pages) telling us that brain size and intellectual performance have nothing to do with one another without once noting that our brains have not always been the size they are today. Nor is that awkward fact mentioned anywhere else in the book. I've always thought that the reason for this curious omission is that Gould is too good a biologist to not appreciate that the only way the human brain could have almost tripled in size in the last 2 million years was if larger-brained individuals were in some way advantaged over smaller-brained ones. How advantaged? Well -- dare one say it? -- by being smarter. What else? But Gould also saw where that would lead, and so the inconvenient fact of human evolution was simply ignored. Nonetheless, I too would appreciate Lewontin and Gould giving us their current thoughts on the topic. Vincent Sarich _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:47>From PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Wed May 4 11:36:47 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 11:43:35 -0500 (EST) From: MARC PICARD <PICARD@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA> Subject: Re: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: firstname.lastname@example.org Some of Bonnie Blackwell's comments concerning grammatical correctness are very confusing to a linguist. Such a concept only makes sense if one makes value judgments on the basis of some prestige dialect. No dialect in and of itself can possibly be ungrammatical or grammatically incorrect. This is as absurd as speaking of biological correctness, or claiming that some animals are unbiological. One of the major sources of misconceptions about language and its evolution is the tendency for literate people to forget that it is (still) first and foremost an oral phenomenon. Most people in this world still can't read, and the children who do learn how only do so after they've become full-fledged speakers. The fundamentals of language, i.e. semantics, syntax, morphology and phonology, are definitely not learned from books and magazines. A lot of people think they know what a language is because they speak one. They also conceive of language in terms of (written) words instead of structures that are put together using a bunch of universal and language-specific rules which is really what children learn. In the transmission of those rules, changes occur at every level. This creates diversity, and this process is ongoing and unstoppable. Finally, the idea that there might one day be only one language in the world is about as plausible as the idea that there might be only one kind of animal life. Marc Picard _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:48>From email@example.com Wed May 4 11:49:52 1994 Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 12:46:55 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kelly C. Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Species/Linguistic Death To: email@example.com On Mon, 2 May 1994, Rebecca Fodden wrote: > Steve: It seems to me that evolutionary theory only works in hindsight. > We take a situation as it is now, and tell a story about how it could > have gotten to this stage. If we're lucky, we find a story that fits > with all our evidence -- saves the phenomena, so to speak. Becuause it's > not the kind of theory that allows for predictions (in a sense, to say > that something "survived" is to say no more than that it must have been > "fittest", and vice versa), the kind of forward-looking project you > describe seems to me not within the reach of evolutionary theory. I just can't let this go without comment. Properly formulated, (in terms of propensity accounts) evolutionary theory is not tautologous and predicts all kinds of future dynamics quite well (which is why selective breeding works). > I'm writing a philosophy of science paper right now on explanation, and > the asymmetry of explanation and prediction in evolutionary theory is > intersting to me. If you (or anybody) wants to talk about this that > would be great. I'd love to see the paper, though I can predict that I won't agree with much of it.... Kelly Smith firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:49>From email@example.com Wed May 4 11:57:22 1994 Date: Wed, 4 May 94 16:16:02 BST From: Margaret Winters <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: English as a world language To: email@example.com Larry Spencer is afraid of being flamed for stating that English is becoming a world language. On the contrary, all indications point that way -- what is most interesting is that it is not all one kind of English; we are not talking about specifically American or British imperialism, although it must have begun through both of those. For those who don't want to see English in this (perhaps) em- barrassing situation, you can go to the Czech Republic (as I did a couple of weeks ago - outside of Prague, to be specific) and find that German will get you much further than English. But I know this is exceptional and changing quickly as well. Margaret Winters firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:50>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca Wed May 4 12:03:12 1994 Date: Wed, 04 May 1994 12:55:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca> Subject: Re: Language evolution To: email@example.com i might wonder whether all brits would pronounce forehead as "forrid", or if that only occurs in the "lower classes"? Well educated brits have always sounded to me like they were saying "forhead", although I admit they often added an "r" sound here and there that did appear in print. Also was it that the schoolmarm felt unsure of herself or that she wanted her charges to feel they could walk into lunch with the queen and not feel like a hick? Bonn _______________________________________________________________________________ Darwin-L Message Log 9: 1-50 -- May 1994 End
© RJO 1995–2016